Art & Artists

another artist i admire is monet, especially his later work, there is a calm beauty in his work that i find relaxing when i look at it.

Gustave Caillebotte's Paris Street; Rainy Day...



Painted in 1877, this realistic scene is the ultimate act of snobbery by the wealthy "sugar daddy" of Impressionism, Gustave Caillebotte. Born into money, Caillebotte was instrumental in transforming Parisian society from lower-class squalor to urban sophistication. By buying up property and then raising rent to drive out the unwanted, the new bourgeoisie government brought about the rise of the "flaneur" (rich tw@t with a head full of art), which paved the way for the more aggressive second phase of the Impressionist movement.

The buildings in the painting are new, built after the destruction of the slums that stood before them. And none of the figures appear to be in a hurry (even though it is raining), as if they are staking their claim to own the streets that once belonged to tradesmen. Even the shiny stones of the newly-laid cobbled road are mockingly perfect and uniform. Basically, this painting is a 'victory dance', aimed at the scum that used to live there.

Fortunately, the workers' revolt forced out the government and Paris life returned to normal (just with nicer houses, better streets and a load of 'arty' types mulling around the place with their heads up their own arses). Not unlike the Paris of today.

Thanks to ImageChunk.com for Free adult image host

the light in that is fabulous.

Hmmm, never really studied Caillebotte. Heard the name, but I never paid enough attention in Art History.
That painting is so UN-impressionist it's shocking. Everything so precisely delineated (you've already mentioned the orderly relative positioning of the constituent elements, Forum Style) - but the almost total lack of vivid colour (which is one of my favourite aspects of Impressionism and why I love Fauvism so much) is striking, add to the fact that this was very clearly not 'knocked off in a couple of hours' but painstakingly crafted in a studio over time - is this a betrayal of the Impressionists - one in the eye - or is it meant to be a tacit admission of its frivolity as perceived by the artist?

Missing key events. Talking bollocks. Making stuff up.
~~~SAVE THE KRILL!~~~

I like the pavement between the lamp post and the man in the fore ground looking right. You can almost smell the new rain on that.

That bloke on the left has got wheels on his brolly. Now that's just lazy.

(15-01-2011 20:32 )Krill Liberator Wrote:  That painting is so UN-impressionist it's shocking.

Especially as the finished painting is 9ft by 7ft - doesn't really fit in with the spontaneity of Impressionism either. Caillebotte was obsessed with photography at that time but I don't think it was a conscious attempt to replicate the conformity of photography that drove him to use such precision and realism in his work. It is more likely that it was founded in elitism, derived from his association with the inner circle of Napoleon Bonaparte's government. In fact, it is believed that this painting was commissioned by Baron Haussmann, Napoleon's civic planner and the man responsible for the slums being torn down and the new houses (featured in the work) that were built in their place. Both Renoir and Monet had painted this scene a few years earlier and littered it with trees and vibrant colours, much more inkeeping with the Impressionist style. Maybe it was a message to them and the other Impressionists that they should know their place.

Personally, I wonder how much of an effect politics had on this painting and Caillebotte's general style and subdued tone. Remember, Impressionism is a product of free-thinking, a celebration of light and colour that says "f*ck work, I want to paint and fall in love and ride a boat on the Seine until it gets dark". Caillebotte was a product of capitalism and industrialisation; where you work hard and walk all over the liberal wastrels who just want to fritter their lives away having fun. I don't think this represents a reluctance to commit to the fundamental tenets of Impressionism, just an ambivalence. At odds with himself about his love of art and his vaunted social status.

And I agree loulo12, that's my favourite bit too.

Since you mention realism and photographic image, photography is and art as well, and this picture, second oldest known photo I find absolutely fascinating, not just because it's from 1838/9, or you can just see an image of a fella (first human taken, though he had no idea) having his boots polished in his tri corner hat (he was the only one caught because of the exposure time, being stood still). But it's the buildings, the open window someone had swung open, curtain slightly ajar in one of the hotel windows where someone had just got up and peeped out at the world, the lamps and again the pavements, there cleaner and better laid than a lot today; beautifully well kept street. All this is not long after the revolution, that chap my have been part of it That photo could have been taken in the early ours of an old part of Paris today and just aged.

Could be part of the street those people in Caillebotte are walking down before they where pulled down.

Huge pic fine detail:


http://www.howtobearetronaut.com/wp-cont...guerre.jpg


Boulevard du Temple“, taken by Daguerre

Great photo. I wonder if some of the darker buildings down the left and at the back right of the photo are part of the urban modernisation that occurred in Paris around that time. Architecturally speaking, they seem to be in the style that Caillebotte would later paint at the suggestion of Haussmann; like in Rooftops under snow painted in 1878...



If they are, I don't think it's a coincidence that the older, smaller building in the foreground of the photo (previously posted) appears very white against the engulfing conurbation of the "new" Paris. A battling remnant of the old city. Also, the road tailing off into the middle distance is significant. It suggests a future of uncertainty and change, one that rises above the house in the foreground; almost burying it. Though there is some hope in the photo because the sky is predominantly light in tone (this may have been done after the photo was finished because the blemishes and fading at the horizon and on the skyline appear to be affectations). Maybe Daguerre was saying that, even when the buildings are gone, the spirit of the old Paris will live on.

Indeed I think they may be:

Quote:The transformations of Paris by Baron Haussmann radically modified this part of Le Marais; today, only the Théâtre Déjazet remains of the late 18th century theatres; half of them were demolished for the enlargement of the Place de la République.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haussmann%2...n_of_Paris

I must say when I saw your post it came to my mind pretty much straight away.

Here is a coloured photo apparently showing more people, tough to me they seem to have missed a couple stood in a shop door way, the 7th shop along from the left with the orange sun screen pulled down

http://artwork.lunarlog.com/wp-content/u...dified.jpg